So I guess a lot of EU based sites will be shutting down when Article 13 becomes law...

Shame so many put all that effort into GDPR when their days were numbered. I imagine sites will be sellings for cents on the dollar to US and other non-EU entities. (Cents on the Euro? Is that a phrase?)

So looks like the EU will force all ISPs to censor what any user may upload anywhere and if there is a mention or even a link to a copyrighted work you'll need permission from the copyright holder to link to their work and pay a link tax... and if your ISP doesn't do this filtering they will be held financially responsible for anything you do wrong online.

Except it doesn't refer to ISPs. It's talking about services like YouTube. (ISSPs can include ISPs but in this interpretation it is clearly thinking of something like YT)

And you know what? YouTube already has this, because it had to, to comply with various US copyright laws, not least of was the DMCA, and in particular the ruling in 2016 changing liability towards site owners for content infringements. And there have been DMCA filings against non US entities before we start talking overreach again.

And again we're also back to what is appropriate and proportionate. The opening preamble makes it clear that the target is not the many but "certain service providers" and the emphasis on "audiovisual" makes me think it's about clamping down on the rampant copyright infringement that occurs on YT.

And Recital 38 makes reference to Article 14 of 2000/31/EC which explicitly accounts for the EU equivalent of safe harbour, making it just as safe as it has been for the last 16 years or so that if you as a host aren't knowingly using copyrighted materials, you're good provided that you act on knowledge when given.

Other than that it seems to be tightening up on otherwise widespread use of copyrighted materials and I can't see from it where it puts more burdens on us as site owners that we wouldn't already have, in the US or the EU.

And there have been DMCA filings against non US entities before we start talking overreach again.

Click to expand...

And exactly how well do those go... oh yeah... pretty much ignored.
It's much easier to pursue it under the ECD than DMCA since DMCA is not enforceable in the EU. https://www.dmca.com/faq/European-DMCA-Takedown-process (and I find it funny that there is a private company making money off the 4 letters involved with a federal law that honestly should have been registered by said US Government as an information site by the USDOC).

The DMCA itself isn’t directly enforceable here, no, but it has a legal equivalent of sorts, the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 (the aforementioned 2000/31/EC), which can be used in much the same way, it just isn’t because it didn’t get the media spotlight.

'Cookie walls' should be banned under new ePrivacy rules as they are not compatible with GDPR, according to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB).

In a statement on the anticipated revision to the EU's ePrivacy Directive, the EDPB, the official body tasked with overseeing the consistent application of the new data protection laws, called for a strengthening in how user consent is obtained and bolstering privacy in electronic communications.

Cookie walls, which are deployed by websites on the condition users consent to storing cookies on their device, was referenced directly alongside tracking technologies in general, as the EDPB said GDPR's requirement for organisations to obtain "a freely-given consent" should "prevent service providers from including cookie walls for their users".

"In order for consent to be freely given as required by the GDPR," the statement continued, "access to services and functionalities must not be made conditional on the consent of a user to the processing of personal data or the processing of information related to or processed by the terminal equipment of end-users, meaning that cookie walls should be explicitly prohibited."

The text for the new ePrivacy Regulation is yet to be finalised by the EU parliament despite being first proposed by the European Commission in early 2017. These are tailored specifically to cover electronic communications, where GDPR covers personal data, but delays in its drafting mean the exact form it will take has yet to be established.

Drafted in a bid to replace the existing Cookie Law, these new regulations will bring service providers within the scope of the EU's ePrivacy rules for the first time. A submission from the UK data regulator the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to the EU's consultation on the Regulation said the revision should "achieve a proportionate balance" between privacy rights and "legitimate interests of information society services".

The EDPB, set up on 25 May to coincide with GDPR coming into force, is an EU body tasked with applying and regulating the new set of data protection laws consistently across member states; comprising the head of each nation's regulator, among others.

The UK, however, was recently informed by the EU's chief negotiator in Brexit talks, Michel Barnier, that it will be relegated to "third country" status, and that the ICO will no longer have a decision-making seat on the body.

The UK, however, was recently informed by the EU's chief negotiator in Brexit talks, Michel Barnier, that it will be relegated to "third country" status, and that the ICO will no longer have a decision-making seat on the body.

While it may well be that the EU has cooked another half baked directive, that video comes across as far from objective. I stopped watching after 3.20 minutes.

Click to expand...

The crappy drawing of the nu-male in the preview wasn't enough of a hint that it'd be crap?

Anyway, if the recent actions of the EU aren't enough to convince everyone that laws on/for the internet are a bad idea then I don't know what is. I've given up on the clearnet, it's just going to get controlled by data monopolies because all the independants (this means you) allowed it to happen. I don't blame people for getting suckered into a bad deal but after all these years of abuse at the hands of google and the other large companies you'd think more people would be waking up to reality. Stop giving them data!

The future is distributed content that can never be censored via p2p networks and later meshnets once the big companies see the writing on the wall and attempt to block those networks at the major backbones. The only real innovation I've seen in the past few years has happened on the so-called darknetworks and p2p technology like IPFS. Where on the clearnet all we've had in the past few years is more hacky javascript thrown on top of the existing crap and laws written to seize control over portions of the global network.

The global network is going to get split into regions if this keeps up. Soon every major country/region will be like China. As more laws are passed and the trade war spreads you'll start to see regions blocking their citizens from accessing other regions. Great firewalls for everyone and the justification for it all will be; hate speech, drugs, and the children.

The global network is going to get split into regions if this keeps up. Soon every major country/region will be like China. As more laws are passed and the trade war spreads you'll start to see regions blocking their citizens from accessing other regions. Great firewalls for everyone and the justification for it all will be; hate speech, drugs, and the children.

Click to expand...

It is starting to happen.

Australia charges a goods and services tax within our borders. Now, we are forcing everyone else globally to collect taxes on the government's behalf. Just like the discussions saying non EU admins will just block EU users over GDPR, well, non-AU companies are just going to block AU shoppers. Apparently other countries are looking to implement similar laws. So much for free trade, consumer choice, etc.

The actual implementation of these things was boneheaded for sure, but what they were trying to do: show you how you’re being tracked and makecompanies not misuse your data... these seem admirable goals to me.

The actual implementation of these things was boneheaded for sure, but what they were trying to do: show you how you’re being tracked and makecompanies not misuse your data... these seem admirable goals to me.

Click to expand...

It seems to me what they are trying to do is make laws impossible to follow so they can fine large companies (primarily US based companies) millions or billions of dollars on a regular basis to finance their troubled socialist programs and other poor judgements they have made.

Claiming acceptance of cookies terms can't be tied to the use of the service is basically saying companies have to offer all their benefits for free. We all know the game. Ads are easily blocked. It's the data that's worth the big bucks to Facebook and Google. Block them from collecting and sharing that (which everyone knows they do) and you're forcing them to give away their product for free. That's their business model. If you don't like it, don't use them.

There was an update to the original video so I am including it here for completeness-

According to the video the law will require Google and Microsoft (and all other sites) to pay news sites for showing short snippets of their news articles and LINKING users to that news. Even though Google sends millions of people to news sites and those sites show ads Google and indeed this site would have to pay if someone linked to a news article.

And what Google does in terms of showing snippets... that's not actually covered in fair use either in US or EU copyright laws. They're literally making money off your content without paying you for it, and it's assumed that because you don't opt out of your content on Google, you're implicitly consenting to this business model.

There was an update to the original video so I am including it here for completeness-

According to the video the law will require Google and Microsoft (and all other sites) to pay news sites for showing short snippets of their news articles and LINKING users to that news. Even though Google sends millions of people to news sites and those sites show ads Google and indeed this site would have to pay if someone linked to a news article.